I think that some pictures in playboy are incredibly artful. They use many elements of artistic photography, things such as line and symmetry, contrast, and of corse, a heavy focus on shape. Porn is often not artful, but nothing said that it can't be.

art is art. whether it be of naked men and women or simple dots to paper. the point of art is for the artist to show how he/she sees the world. artists even now create fine works displaying nudity. sometimes to show creation and structure or praise to the magnificance that the human body is. playboy and other porn can be considered art in its own form. anything is an art if applied in the right context. however, playboy doesnt place itself as artwork and is such not intended to be artwork. it is merely pleasurable reading/viewing and there is no social controversy to it.

It is not fair to try to compare two differnet art forms as if they were one and the same. I love all forms of art but to try to compare them as same is as impossible as apple to orange. Art is in the eye of the beholder I personal favor paint and sketch being more eye/mind to hand. I do not know if Michaelangelo was popular because he painted nudes copulating or masterbating. David seemed to be doing neither just simply being larger than life and releasing emtion. Do not get me wrong this does not take anything away from a good artistist nude photo I do admire some of those as well. I just can't compare one with the other.

I have heard that it was Oscar Wilde who, when looking at a painting said that it was good work, but asked if it was art. I'm not really sure where he was coming from, but today it appears as though he introduced an unanswerable question. People today are always asking if something is art. Art is distinguished from illustration, it is distinguished from mere recording, it is distinguished from craft or invention. Much modern art consists in the search for originality, political and social commentary and the attempt to expand what can be considered art. I suggest that in taking Oscar Wilde's question seriously we have taken a huge wrong turn. We should not ask of a piece of work if it is art, we should merely concern ourselves with whether it is good, whether it is well done, whether it has a good message and whether we like it.

art is honesty. it is art when it impacts the creator and the audience. if you don't agree, then you don't agree, that doesn't mean it's not art.

i guess art is sort of subjective. However, i also think that any sort of creative project or display which comes from some expersion of the artist or something that they feel inspires them- whether it be a naked woman, or capturing the rennisance man in Michaelangelo's David. If it is somethign that strikes a cord with someone and means something to them more then is literally visually shown, such as seeing a truth in beauty or something like that . Also those works of art to hich the question is refering were really prevalent to their time period becuase they were so incredibly daring and provocative.

There exist two different schools of thought. One of them belives that art should be for art's sake, and it should not be concealed behind the curtains of morality. The other school of thought is of the view that ethics and moral values should be observed while creating a piece of art. They are of the view that as a man/woman cannot take bath or have sex in the presence of parents, siblings, children etc even every one knows that he/she has sexual relationship with his/her spouse. So nudity must not be revealed in different forms of art including paintings, pictures, poetry, prose, drama, dance, sculpture and others. It may lead towards nudity, vulgarity, incest, buggery, adultery and other social evils and sins...Both these school stand pole apart!!!!!!

The human body still is one of the most original forms of pure beauty. The human body is in many different art works. I dont think its perverted at all. Everyone can identify with the human body it has no taints. I think u can even make sex beautiful. Like in words it can be the way you describe it, certain physcial movements, certain word choices. How is sex not really art unless its meant to demean and demeaning is not lovely. The human body is a beautiful canvas. People have tatoos on it. You can make sex a beautiful thing by the way its depicted the tone and imagery. There is nothing wrong with making sex beautiful. I think theres so much negativity vs positivity and beauty is something to be treasured.

It isn't the subject matter which defines art, it is the ability of the artist to capture light and shadow, to create visual effects through the use of perspective, to create realistic looking waves and folds in fabric, to capture three dimensional highlights and textures on a two dimensional plane. It is the ability of the artist to use negative space to his/her advantage through clever composition.

Cameras are no less an artistic tool than canvas, paint and brush. Even with hardcore porn, an artistic photographer armed with lights, tripods, meters, darkroom, etc. can create a much more stimulating display than a Photography 101 dropout with a disposable camera from Walmart.

The greatest trait of a true artist is how well they are able to cover their mistakes!

High class people call it art because they are ashamed admit the truth. I think an artist that paints naked people is just as lustful as a man who looks at a playboy. Calling it art is their way of justifying what they critisize.